pbi_list_design_systems

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds conceptual context about design systems (color/typography palettes, canvas size, grid, text scale) and the consequence of changing systems late. This adds value beyond the annotation but does not disclose concrete behaviors like return format or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise yet informative. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides a helpful conceptual explanation. The metaphor about a room board versus a PDF is illustrative but slightly extraneous; still, it reinforces the importance of choosing early. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the length is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what design systems are, what they include, and why they should be chosen before building pages. It does not explicitly link to pbi_apply_design_system, but the overall guidance is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter is 'request_id', an optional string with a default of ''. The description does not discuss parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. However, the parameter is trivial and self-explanatory from the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is really needed for such a simple optional field, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins 'Sistemas de diseno disponibles: para que sirve cada uno y que trae' which clearly indicates this is a listing tool for design systems, and goes on to explain what a design system encompasses (theme, canvas, grid, text scale). The name also clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'design systems'. It somewhat distinguishes from sibling pbi_list_themes by describing the broader scope of design systems, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives important timing guidance: 'Eligelo ANTES de la primera pagina; cambiarlo despues obliga a recolocarlo todo.' This implies when to use this tool (before starting page composition) and why it matters. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with related siblings like pbi_apply_design_system or pbi_list_themes, nor does it state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.